Friday 9 July 2010 19.05 EDT
First published on Friday 9 July 2010 19.05 EDT

David Howman, the World Anti-Doping Agency's director-general, last night spoke out in defence of Jamaica's drugs-testing regime after Shelly-Ann Fraser became the eighth athlete from the island to fall foul of doping regulations in 12 months.

In an exclusive interview with the Guardian yesterday Howman said scepticism over the efficacy of the Jamaican Anti-Doping Commission, that began around the 2008 Olympics, was unfounded. "We have worked very hard with Jamaica since Beijing," he said from Wada's Montreal offices. "We were alert to the comments and have offered our help. We've been there four or five times; most recently in May at the invitation of the Jamaican sports minister. We prepared a report about how their national anti-doping agency is progressing. In general it was a very positive report and there was nothing that made the agency non-compliant with the Wada Code.

"There were some suggestions for improvement around daily operational issues, such as sample collection, providing more out-of-competition tests and looking at potential conflicts of interest in several individuals who were closely involved in sports. And they are making strides in that direction."

The roots of the rumours about Jamaica's supposedly weak regulatory regime lie in Beijing, where Jamaican athletes scooped six gold medals in the sprint and hurdles events at the 2008 Olympic Games. At the time the Jamaican Anti-Doping Commission was an under-funded organisation that did not match the standards required of those in athletics' other leading nations. Voices such as Carl Lewis and even Jamaica's own Usain Bolt, who stated 14 months ago that his homeland's anti-doping facilities were not up to scratch, cast doubt on the island's commitment to the fight against drugs in sport. However, Howman believes much has changed since.

Nor was he concerned that Jamaica has declined membership in the Caribbean's Regional Anti-Doping Organisation. "They decided they wanted their own national programme," he said. "This has been backed by the government, which passed a law and that is fine."

Fraser, as reigning Olympic and world 100m champion, is the highest-profile Jamaican athlete to test positive to date. Her positive test for Oxycodone, a synthetic opiate, has led to more speculation about Jamaican dominance of sprint disciplines. Yet, like others from the island recently to have tested positive, her case is deeply nuanced. Fraser does not deny she took the medication, which she had been given by her own coach, Stephen Francis, to alleviate severe toothache, and admits she was at fault. She says her crime was more clerical error than deliberate deceit and regrets omitting to report the drug on her doping-control form to the Diamond League meeting in Shanghai in May.

"I take some responsibility as athletes are supposed to be responsible for what they take," she has said. "But I am upset as everybody is starting to assume I am taking drugs. My reputation is ruined somewhat." That might not wash with Wada, although its zero-tolerance approach does not prevent athletes from treating ailments with the appropriate medication when they arise. Nick Davies,spokesman for the International Association of Athletics Federations, said they were "disappointed with her carelessness. Athletes must pay more attention to what they ingest as our rules are clear."

There will be a debate about whether Wada should be busying itself with cases such as Fraser's. Oxycodone is a painkiller akin to morphine, not widely acknowledged for making people run faster, nor does the Wada Code consider it a masking agent for other, more sinister substances. Asafa Powell, who has in the past called for drugs cheats to serve jail sentences rather than mere competition bans, has swung behind Fraser in this case.

"It's a lot different in Shelly's case as she didn't cheat," the Jamaican sprinter said. "She took some painkillers, [which] is something different. If it doesn't help you perform well, I don't think it should be on the list because, if it causes you to perform worse, it's your fault. It's complicated but if it's not something that helps you it shouldn't be on the list."

Howman conceded this is an area of the code that needs scrutiny. He said: "We have already revised the [2004] code, in 2007, and we conducted a review last year and will again in 2012. We're alert to the need to check that the laws are proper and acceptable. If there is an uprising against them, of course we will do something about it."